What is with the haters with a Chevy in a Ford....

[JKnight]

Perhaps we need to split this discussion off into an aero thread, and get back to (or stop) discussing my dream of putting a 5.0 in the wife's Camaro (I kid).

 

Jason

[horsewidower]

Scott: I absolutely agree with you. To my knowledge, no one's aero has come close to what is possible. It is something I planned to explore once the car was running and at least somewhat reliable. I just don't want a mechanical component to run a foul of a rule meant to contain aero development.

 

I did set up parts of the car that will already have problems if the nose has to be 3" from the ground. I'd prefer to see the nose and splitter combo allowed to be within 2".

 

Yep, this should probably be discussed in its own thread.

 

JWL, any way to split off the relevant posts to a different thread?

 

Bob

[nape]

Will you feel the same way when someone outspends you by a mile and builds a car with around 2000lbs of underbody downforce? Will you then campaign for a rule that makes his car illegal then, or just it let it be a dominant car - even with only a mediocre driver?

 

It's amazing to me that people are fighting against the closing of such an obvious loophole.

 

If someone designs a car that builds 500lbs of underbody downforce, I'll just laugh and be completely fine driving second to him. The reason? Because if he knows it makes 500lbs of downforce, his wind tunnel budget for one session exceeds my season racing budget by a lot.

 

This is CLUB RACING. If someone wants to spend $200,000 to beat my <$20,000 car, I'm going to laugh all the way to the bank.

 

As far as aero, no one has even got it right to the point where a car without aero isn't competitive. In fact, a car without aero won the National Championship this year.

 

If you want to outlaw underbody tunnels and limits splitters to 3", request a rule that says that. Don't make a blanket rule that screws everyone that has a component that's lower then that mark. I don't care if you have a splitter, but don't outlaw my radiator air deflector that keeps my car at 190* just so you can be smug that no one has a car with anything lower then 3" that might affect aero.

 

Run all the splitters, canards, diffusers, and wings that you want but don't screw up my ability to run low-buck.

[b_tone]

I'm still struggling to understand how a car with 4-5" of wheel travel is going to have an effective underbody aerodynamic device? I think it's bunk and even more ridiculous than thinking that a modified OEM rear IRS cradle is going to cause everyone to build an IRS.

 

These cars have solid axles (for the most part) so that pretty much removes effective diffusers, since these are all unibody cars making undertrays is also pretty much out of the question, leaving Wings and splitters.

 

We have a limits on wings, so let's put one on splitters and call it done. Limit the forward length and the width as well as a vertical minimum off the ground be done.

 

I truly think you guys are over thinking this.

[Holster Maker]

Thanks TJ, you can be my Lawyer.

I agree with you completely!

They can out spend me by a mile anytime they want.

I bet I'm still near them or ahead just having fun.

[swhiteh3]

If someone designs a car that builds 500lbs of underbody downforce, I'll just laugh and be completely fine driving second to him. The reason? Because if he knows it makes 500lbs of downforce, his wind tunnel budget for one session exceeds my season racing budget by a lot.

No wind tunnel time required. Just a little reading into the open-aero cars of the 80s. The underwing profiles and much of that data is now available if you know where to look. A few educated guesses will get you in the ballpark. Remember they were making 10,000# of downforce, with estimates running about 80% of it coming from the underbody. I conservatively estimated you could make 25% of that with common tools and no development program. I think that's pretty realistic.

[swhiteh3]

They can out spend me by a mile anytime they want.

I bet I'm still near them or ahead just having fun.

I want this to be fun too. That's why I want this rule. I don't want to have to do this race up front. I WANT people to be competitive with a car they built in their garage.

[swhiteh3]

I'm still struggling to understand how a car with 4-5" of wheel travel is going to have an effective underbody aerodynamic device? I think it's bunk and even more ridiculous than thinking that a modified OEM rear IRS cradle is going to cause everyone to build an IRS.

It would be very easy to stiffen the car up enough to get a stable aero platform. Any series where aero is allowed tends to run stiffer springs. I mentioned this in very first post here - that stiffer springs will be necessary and, along with undeveloped aero devices, will make the cars harder to drive.

 

These cars have solid axles (for the most part) so that pretty much removes effective diffusers, since these are all unibody cars making undertrays is also pretty much out of the question, leaving Wings and splitters.

There's no problem getting an underbody tunnel under a solid axle. If you look at where the throat of the tunnel would need to be, it all works out quite nicely.

[JWL]

Will ask my IT folk how to split the threads...might be above my PlaySkOOL internet skillz.

 

As for the aero rule, would something easy like no aero devices allowed between the centerlines of either axle or beyond 2" inboard of the rocker panel? We could also limit how far forward a splitter can stick out, but I am hesitant to do that without looking at how far folks have them sticking out now so we don't cause Sawzall madness over the Winter.

 

Keep on thinking and posting...

 

-JWL

[b_tone]

Scott, while I don't disagree that it can't be done, I do think it can't be done our our types of budgets. Sure people may start throwing stuff under the car, I say go ahead and let them. Having been part of aero development I have an understanding on what it would take to make it all work, and its way outside of most of our budgets.

 

Here is a simple rule that will kill this:

 

"No underbody devices allowed between the centerlines of the front and rear wheels."

 

With that inplace there will be no way to control the flow under the car (because there are no flat bottomed cars) thus removing nearly all potential underbody cars.

 

It's not that difficult to curb this right now with my suggested rule.

 

EDIT: JWL beat me by a few minutes, I guess that's what I get for refilling my coffee in the middle of my post. To his point yes in my opinion that would work to limit what would work, and in reality without a flat bottom a diffuser won't work.

 

Length of splitters - if you have more than 3-4 inches of flat surface out front you've probably got too much as without a huge amount of rear downforce you'll have a ridiculous center of pressure (from an aero perspective) to the front and most likely result in a big push and slow straight speeds.

[ST#97]

No wind tunnel time required. Just a little reading into the open-aero cars of the 80s. The underwing profiles and much of that data is now available if you know where to look. A few educated guesses will get you in the ballpark. Remember they were making 10,000# of downforce, with estimates running about 80% of it coming from the underbody. I conservatively estimated you could make 25% of that with common tools and no development program. I think that's pretty realistic.

 

Link por favor?! I need some good bathroom reading since my GRM just isn't getting it anymore!

 

Thanks!